Why believe in one and not the other?

Question

If we trust science to help with criminal prosecutions, etc...
Why don't we believe in evolution?

I realize it is an issue of religion for some but
A) Why can't science and religion mix?
and
B) Why can't religious individuals at least acknowledge it as a theory without criticizing it as a huge scandal?

I realize that their are exceptions to this, but still, I know though some see the relations, there are many that do not.

Answer 1

Don't forget that MEDICINE is a branch of science.

Everything from the discovery of antibiotics, to the discovery and testing of medicines, to hygeine, to radiation used to fight cancer, to the germ theory of disease, and on and on ... all direct products of the scientific method.

So the majority of people reading this are alive today because of science. (I was born with a problem that would have killed me in infancy, had it not been for science.) And chances are that science will save their lives not once but several times at some point in their lives.

And of course, 100% of people reading this right now are able to do so because of a little scientific discovery called "electricity", and all the other inventions (like computers and this Internet we are all talking on) ... all science.

So I am always amazed by the unbridled hypocrisy displayed when I hear somebody disparaging science or (the best one) calling scientists "stupid."

But to address your question:

Can science and religion mix? Absolutely. They are two very very different approaches to truth ... neither is better or more important than the other. And when considered properly, they overlap very little and there is no problem. Whenever they do overlap, it is almost always religion encroaching on questions of literal facts and evidence (the domain of science) ... never science encroaching on questions of allegorical truth and morality (the domain of religion).

In other words, there are a class of questions ... arguably the truly *important* questions ... that science *cannot* answer. Things like: What is our purpose? How should we treat each other? How do we deal with pain and tragedy? What happens when we die? Science has no tools to address these really deep questions.

But some religious leaders instead insist on dealing with the mundane questions that science *can* answer. Where did barnacles come from? How old is the oldest rock? The oldest fossil? Were trilobites around while people were here? Are geckos related to salamanders? Then, when the two come up with different, radically conflicting answers, it forces followers into a terrible choice: reject religion, or reject science ... and both are tragic. Scientists don't put people in that position ... religious leaders do.

E.g. the book of Genesis is a beautiful allegorical description of God's relationship with man, and man's relationship with the universe and nature. But when interpreted literally as a description of actual creation events that took place over a one-week period about 6,000 years ago, it is turned into a joke.

It is not scientists who are demeaning Genesis by turning it into a joke, it is the fundamentalists. They are destroying the very foundation of their own faith by insisting that science should and can verify it. They fail to see that by insisting that science confirm a *literal* interpretation of Genesis events, they are subjecting the Genesis story to the rigors of science ... namely logic and evidence. Big mistake! Faith needs to be absolute. Science is not absolute. In science, it is impossible to prove something as Absolutely True, but it is easy to prove it False ... all it takes is ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. Trust me. You don't want religion in that arena.

Frankly, I am mystified by religious leaders insisting that religion address such petty matters as how old the earth is literally, or how chimps are related to gorillas. That's like the President of the U.S. wanting to know how the mail is sorted in the White House mail room ... aren't there loftier questions to deal with?

Religious leaders don't realize they have a monopoly on the really important questions, the lofty questions ... science can't touch those questions, and is relegated to what are, by comparison, the mundane details of nature. Religious leaders should be engaging people in the really *deep* questions of who we are ... instead they engage in petty squabbles over how Noah was able to gather every single species of giraffe, kangaroo, penguin, beetle, banana slug, spider, mosquito, tick, flea, and bacteria on the planet, and cram them onto a boat, with enough food for one year (yes it was an entire year on the Ark), and then distribute those creatures to their exclusive habitats in every corner of the globe. Why do they allow discussions about a beautiful book like Genesis to get reduced to that kind of a petty argument?

So the way the two can co-exist is to keep a far more advanced view of religion and theology than the idea that it is just a description of mundane events ... like a newsletter account of what happened in the softball field last week. It is far more important to understand what the story of Genesis *means* ... as a way of relating to God ... than clinging to details like whether Noah's ark was 30 cubits or 35 cubits tall. Forget the literal details! Those petty literal details are so unimportant next to the real issues of mystery and morality that the Bible is really about.

Answer 2

I don't know if religion is real or not. In other words, I'm an agnostic. But I believe that a god could have created the universe. It me, it's just another theory waiting to be proven or disproven. A god could have created the big bang. If so, then god created the universe and everything and everyone in it. Another theory that needs to be considered is that the big bang was a natural phenomena and no supernatural being was involved.

The problem comes when people won't accept that god could work through natural events. Some people feel that if it's not done in some supernatural or magic fashion then god didn't do it.

Answer 3

because the angel Gabriel advised me that Jimmy Carter turns into the Antichrist aka Dajjal (eighth King in Rev. 17) and he will serve yet all over again period in workplace after the shortcoming of existence of Obama (seventh king). The angel Gabriel advised me in Aug. 1973 even as i became in Phillipsbrug, Montana that Jimmy Carter turns into the Anti-Christ, and that he is going to regulate his call, and divorce his spouse! Obama is going to die first and then the Anti-Christ aka Dajjal who became between the previous 7 Presidents will take his position! Rev. 17:10 And there are seven kings: 5 are fallen, and one is, [and] the different isn't yet come; or perhaps as he cometh, he could proceed a short area. All 7 kings were all alive till the shortcoming of existence of Ronald Reagan June 5, 2004 even as George W. Bush became in workplace ; a million. Gerald Ford 2. Jimmy Carter 3. Ronald Reagan 4. George H. W. Bush 5. bill Clinton 6. George W. Bush.... is spoken of contained in the prevailing demanding (and one is) because till Reagan died (June 5, 2004) all 7 were alive! 7. Barack Obama.......and one is yet to go back! he will die some days after he will improve taxes! Obama is likewise in Dan. 11:20 Then shall get up in his resources a raiser of taxes [in] the honour of the dominion: yet interior of few days he will be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in conflict. Rev. 17:11 And the beast that became, and is not, even he's the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Answer 4

To some extent, they DO mix. Many scientists are religious. And quite a few religious people acknowledge the existence of scientific theories.

Answer 5

It is all a question of how open minded a person is. Galileo was a religeous man who was silenced by the Inquisition. Just recently, Pope John Paul II said that Galileo was right. This was not, of course, the greatest wrong committed by the Inquisition, but they silenced the greatest man of the time. I doubt too many people know any names of the members of the Inquisition, I certainly don't.

Answer 6

science and religion mix perfectly well for many people. i know chemists who are devout in their religion of choice. it's the hard liners that have issues.

Answer 7

Religion relies on authority and failure to think -- it requires belief to exist. Science relies on facts and logic -- it exists independently of belief. No, the two can never get along -- they are completely opposite.

Answer 8

science and religion mix fine.....a day back in the time of creation could have been any length of time